A Masterpiece on the Immaculate Conception

The Catholic Thing ^ | December 8th, 2021 | Michael Pakaluk

[MurphsLaw]

s it possible for a memorandum to be a masterpiece? A few paragraphs long, dashed off ex tempore, for a friend, not polished? Various columns in TCT have appreciated masterpieces – a poem, a painting, a musical work. But could a memorandum ever be accounted a “masterpiece”?

I have in mind Newman’s “Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception” – written off by the Cardinal,” his editor says, “for Mr. R. I. Wilberforce, formerly Archdeacon Wilberforce, to aid him in meeting the objections urged by some Protestant friends against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.”
,br>

That’s it, “written off” – a memorandum is something written off, dashed off, tossed off.

Surely a master can “dash off” a masterpiece: witness the Gettysburg Address, a Shakespeare sonnet, a Scarlatti sonata. And so we look to Newman’s “Memorandum” without worries as truly a spiritual masterpiece.

Newman begins: “It is so difficult for me to enter into the feelings of a person who understands the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and yet objects to it, that I am diffident about attempting to speak on the subject.” He adds, “I was accused of holding it, in one of the first books I wrote, twenty years ago. On the other hand, this very fact may be an argument against an objector – for why should it not have been difficult to me at that time, if there were a real difficulty in receiving it?”

Already, astonishing brilliance. He imagines someone raising difficulties, and his task would be to understand those difficulties and reply to them. But he can’t see any difficulties. Maybe he’s incompetent even to speak on the subject?

He turns this concern on its head. Many years ago, as a young Anglican minister, long before the pope’s definition, Newman had already come to hold that doctrine, naturally and easily. But he couldn’t have done if it had involved difficulties. So he has the requisite competence, which is to speak to the naturalness of the doctrine!

Here is that earlier passage, from the Parochial and Plain Sermons:

Who can estimate the holiness and perfection of her, who was chosen to be the Mother of Christ? If to him that hath, more is given, and holiness and divine favour go together (and this we are expressly told). . . .What must have been her gifts, who was chosen to be the only near earthly relative of the Son of God, the only one whom He was bound by nature to revere and look up to; the one appointed to train and educate Him, to instruct Him day by day, as He grew in wisdom and stature? This contemplation runs to a higher subject, did we dare to follow it; for what, think you, was the sanctified state of that human nature, of which God formed His sinless Son; knowing, as we do, that “that which is born of the flesh is flesh,” and that “none can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?”

Then come a series of devastating arguments as to why there are no difficulties in the doctrine. If there is no difficulty in saying that Eve was created without sin – if there is no risk of turning her into a deity – what is the great difficulty in saying that Mary was created without sin? If we hold that John the Baptist was cleansed of original sin in the womb, then why not Mary from an even earlier point in the womb? If there is no difficulty in saying that you and I are cleansed from original sin at some later point in our lives by baptism – if our saying so in no way detracts from the merits of the Lord – then wouldn’t Mary’s being cleansed even earlier in her life make her even more dependent on the Lord?

"We do not say that she did not owe her salvation to the death of her Son. Just the contrary, we say that she, of all mere children of Adam, is in the truest sense the fruit and the purchase of His Passion. He has done for her more than for anyone else. To others He gives grace and regeneration at a point in their earthly existence; to her, from the very beginning."

Newman then considers the antiquity of the doctrine. Why? Because “No one can add to revelation. That was given once for all; – but as time goes on, what was given once for all is understood more and more clearly.” You might wish to copy out these lines as proof of what Newman meant by “development of doctrine.” It did not allow for any new revelation. What it means, rather, is this: “The greatest Fathers and Saints in this sense have been in error, that, since the matter of which they spoke had not been sifted, and the Church had not spoken, they did not in their expressions do justice to their own real meaning.”

He focuses on the contrast between Mary and Eve in the earliest writings of the Fathers, and especially the proto-evangelion: “See the direct bearing of this upon the Immaculate Conception... There was war between the woman and the Serpent. This is most emphatically fulfilled if she had nothing to do with sin – for, so far as any one sins, he has an alliance with the Evil One.”

Newman’s masterpiece concludes: “I say it distinctly – there may be many excuses at the last day, good and bad, for not being Catholics; one I cannot conceive: ‘O Lord, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was so derogatory to Thy grace, so inconsistent with Thy Passion, so at variance with Thy word in Genesis and the Apocalypse, so unlike the teaching of Thy first Saints and Martyrs, as to give me a right to reject it at all risks, and Thy Church for teaching it. It is a doctrine as to which my private judgment is fully justified in opposing the Church’s judgment. And this is my plea for living and dying a Protestant.’”

[boatbums]

Wishful thinking?

I always try to direct my comments not only to the one I am responding to but to anyone else who may be reading it, as well. God's word will not return to Him void but it will accomplish what He intends it to.

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isa. 55:11)

[MHGinTN]

Paul is relating the power of the spiritual over the carnal, in that doing the Remembrance unworthily brings the spiritual weight of the admonition against cannibalism down upon the unworthy participant. From way back in Genesis God forbade the eating of blood or eating human flesh. The Council in Acts 15 repeateed this admonition in their instructions to the churches of converted Gentiles. As Paul told the Corinthians,and because of this some have even fallen asleep!

You appear to be unable to spiritually recognize spiritual things, perhaps because of your carnal focus and desire to 'do something to earn Grace'.

[Elsie]

"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's Table, which you now look upon and of which you last night were made participants. You ought to know that you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ"(Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).

"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread IS the Body of Christ and the chalice is the Blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).

 

 

Well; old Auggie is just as able to spout out assertions without proof just as easily as any subsequent Catholic leaders thru the ages.

I would guess that the faith he is speaking of is the faith the the church is teaching y'all the right stuff.  Would that be a correct assumption?

[Elsie]

The Council in Acts 15 repeateed this admonition

'Tis no use!

I think that the Invisible Font must be used whenever I post this, for no Catholic seems to ever see it to respond to it.

[MHGinTN]

I wonder, if one of the Catholics on these threads ever read your post and asked his/her priest about it? Having known a priest or two I suspect obfuscation would be the response due to ignorance and active denial of The Word of God ao as to defend ORG dogma.

[Mark17]

I think that the Invisible Font must be used whenever I post this, for no Catholic seems to ever see it to respond to it.

Never grow weary of doing the Lord’s work bro. Some Catholics actually do listen. I am one. These active duty USAF guys, didn’t convince me to leave the Catholic Church in one day. They stayed at me, for months. They didn’t tell me to leave the Catholic Church, though they might have thought that way, in their own minds. They just concentrated on telling me the truth of gospel, which was opposed to Catholicism. Finally, after months, I was convinced they were telling me the truth, and I got saved. All they said was, read the Bible. I think I stayed in the Catholic Church for about 3 weeks, and I left on my own.
As you know, I live in the belly of the beast. There are countless Catholics to tell the truth to. 🤗 One day, I was at a Gideons meeting at the Grand Menseng Hotel. There were about 40 people there. I asked one of the guys, how many of these people were ex Catholics? He said, most of them were. 😀🙃 Hang in there bro. 👍

[Mr. K]

because wasting time on stuff like this leads to disillusionment among people, and loss of interest in faith.

Instead of arguing about whether or not about something you CAN NEVER POSSIBLY KNOW is useless- neither side will ever be right or wrong.

So why not focus efforts on doing good things, instead of arguing. Focus on teaching people the difference between good and evil. and stop wasting valuable time.

[MurphsLaw]

Well; old Auggie is just as able to spout out assertions without proof just as easily as any subsequent Catholic leaders thru the ages.

Nice. So you post writings of ST. Augustine that are awesome, proof-positive, well thought out and beyond refutation - to make your point against the Catholic.

In reply, I post something as well of ST. Augustine - and all of the sudden, for YOU, the guy becomes an illiterate slob, with no proof, doesn’t know what he is talking about, and worse yet he “spouts out” crap as a mouth piece for the Church just like any other Catholic “leader”.

Heads you win, Tails I lose.

Catalog that snippet of integrity, while you’re at it.

[MurphsLaw]

Paul is relating the power of the spiritual over the carnal, in that doing the Remembrance unworthily brings the spiritual weight of the admonition against cannibalism down upon the unworthy participant
You appear to be unable to spiritually recognize spiritual things, perhaps because of your carnal focus and desire to 'do something to earn Grace'.

I can’t agree with your characterization of Paul here. or the cannibalism stuff.
I still don’t see what would warrant eternal damnation with the Corinthian pot lucks going wrong… maybe a misunderstanding of those traditions St. Paul wanted them to hold to… but damnation?... I think the Galatians were lot more troublesome.

I really do wish whom ever came up with the “cannibalism” shtick realized woulda realized they were also condemning Christ as a lunatic or a heretic. As it was from Christ’s own mouth who, in John 6, pretty strongly requests his flesh be to be eaten- for eternal life's sake. And at the Last Supper again... "This is my Body... eat of it".... so we can understand if the Corinthians misunderstood his commands Paul received from Christ- but unto damnation? That’s pretty harsh…

I know you’re a Dead Sea Scroll buff… how do you see the Essenes impact on any of this? Paul maybe never crossed paths- but don’t you find the Essenes rituals rather interesting? If John the Baptist was a member of the Essene group –would Christ have been approving of these secluded, monastic Jews? – who we can thank for probably preserving the Scrolls before getting wiped out by the Romans... Why though?

The scrolls show interesting evidence that men in priestly garments (white linen), Most celibate- as a condition of the community - performed ritual immersions and then took a meal in which bread and wine was blessed, prayers were said, and lessons read from scripture or community documents.
So much there found in those scrolls – you have to really wonder if it is coincidence – or Providence?

[MurphsLaw]

I don't see how you missed this in my response so I'll repeat it:

…..but with the "development" of brand new doctrine not found in Scripture (the whole counsel of God) and definitely not with those that contradict Scripture.

Mi malo !! Sorry about that… Although I hesitate to admit that… I do so accepting any forthcoming chastisement of my comprehension abilities !!…lol..
I did totally miss what you had wrote… overlooked even.. selectively?? No… just reading too fast usually…. There’s no intention to have you repeat yourself…

And I would have been just as glad then when you replied as we find common agreement on that. Posting that refutation of Newman got me wondering… Many people, even intelligent people can be so rooted that any development (change) in doctrine- or tradition- can be fiercely opposed… thinking Vat 2 in the Cath Church as an example. Though that opposition IS necessary for bad heretical ideas for sure- but should be accepting of change that magnifies beauty, truth and goodness which Newman based as criteria for accepting.
Anyone who is uncertain about developments doesn’t need to look at Newman- but to Christ and what he said about Moses and Divorce. It happens very subtlely. Very few outside of Catholicism would hold to Christ’s view on divorce when asked. That doctrine has sort of had a stealth development into todays marital split acceptability.

The Church, now realizing that 70-80% of divorced adults will quit worship of the Mass and leave the Church, are trying to ease up on those rules many can’t abide in. But this development definitely concerns many as the chances for it to become contradictory (as you stated)- back again to the original scriptural doctrine- - is bad and can lead to error. Obviously though a wife in today’s day and age of violent brutality, whose husband has tried to kill her by setting her on fire in bed doused with gasoline- should not suffer the same adulterous fate as a couple who just get tired with each other and look for another.

Doctrine always needs organic growth- or it could die. The tree comes from the acorn as Newman says- but growths into a different form, looking different but still the same- with its seed intact- but new branches for grafting onto always growing. Branches will wither and die, but the tree must grow to exist. I can’t agree with you –totally- on your specific criteria you cite for accepting developing doctrine. Although “contradiction” would see an inherent disqualifier for developing doctrine- we do it all the time. As mentioned above, Christian’s can in fact willingly engage in divorce where Christ has given us a different teaching about it, I think we all can fall into a realm of “personal” acceptance of this or that doctrine- which WE decide whether it is binding or not, contradictory or not, and therefore can be wrong for one- but right for another. I don’t see a one size fits all here. Also I don’t agree with your criteria that it’s an absolute that “New” doctrine may not come into existence, not from scripture. Although yes, counter-intuitive to BOTH of us on a scriptural level- How do we know what is yet to come? How do we know what the NEXT 500 years may bring? We can look back and see what they didn’t know- from both historical and scientific findings after the fact.?

Historically, the Dead Sea Scrolls find revealed many things unknown to us- not written in the bible- possibly a missing link between Old and New Testament. I read where the scrolls supposedly changed hundreds of years in how the Epistles were interpreted- and now seen in a different light.
Going further, ponder the possibilities now. The Temple was getting destroyed in 70 A.D., anyway, with or without the Incarnation… These Essenes were waiting… and John the Baptist- perhaps Essene- was baptizing for a messianic fulfillment- Was this the when and why of the purpose for God busting through into this world at THAT particular time? Coincidence? I don’t know enough about it, but I think there’s something there beyond the validating actual copied scripture for the atheist and agnostic. Could doctrine develop there where there had been no basis before?

Scientifically we know so much more…and it is God who gives us science. Human intelligence and technology has revealed so much to each succeeding generation, and for better or worse does not seem to have a limit. In our discussion recently someone pointed out that even Catholic Aquinas did not hold to the Immaculate Conception- which was true, (He did though hold to Mary’s sinlessness in life- which he is often misrepresented in not believing in as well.)
If a smart guy like Aquinas had known then- what we know now – of the human reproduction system and molecular DNA instruction – Do you think he may have changed his mind about the IC?
Would his thought have developed differently than it had if he knew what we now know for fact?
Would the knowledge that Mary was born with all the eggs she could ever conceive with - came from her Mother changed his thinking? Could God have only given Mary ONE egg then even, that the Holy Spirit would conceive in Christ with? If Aquinas had known that Jesus and Mary exchanged living cells between each other through their placental bridge - that they would forever have within them some of each other’s cellular DNA unto earthly death – would he have a different take on the IC? I propose it would have pretty difficult for Summa Aquinas to argue. I don’t want to belabor the IC point any more for sure… but its a timely example of how some doctrine can be affected, and seen through modern science.

We read.. “but with God, ALL things are possible”…

We understand the omnipotence of that statement… but do we believe it?
Really believe it?
For many the answer is heck no ! If its not in the Bible- it ain’t happening. I get that- that’s what you have been raised on. Though even with John concluding his gospel- a second time mentions Christ did many, many other things – too many to write down. Yet in our tiny human minds, we will bind God to the pages of a book of writings- in a book that we are told there is MORE to his story. And there IS so much more to this story we will learn. I think that’s the most important part about the development of doctrine we can agree on - that there are still things we just don’t know… and may never know.

[MHGinTN]

"...and beyond refutation..."

Your magic thinking has kicked in again.

[MHGinTN]

Try to rethink this “... that they would forever have within them some of each other’s cellular DNA unto earthly death ... “

[MHGinTN]

When you remove a passage from the context where it is found, you twist the Word of God to say waht you want discarding what God means in the context of the passage. Is it possible for God to contradict His character? Satan is sure hoping so, but then satan is the master of magic thinking.

I think you will find that the 'all things' in the Greek refers to the 'specific things' addressed in the passage, not all things in the Universe.

[MHGinTN]

You asserted, "in John 6, pretty strongly requests his flesh be to be eaten- for eternal life's sake." This one of the most abberant belief in catholiciism. What you are asserting is that GOD with us wiould contradict His own commandments repeated from Genesis through out the Books of Moses, that command to not eat the blood for the olife is in the blood. It is not spiritual life which is int he blood, it is spaciotemporal life of the body carrying the soul. Jesus further on in John 6 reveals why some of us see the passage you want to make sacrosanct was divne sarcasm, having before him men who were so carnally minded that they could not see His reference as to spiritual consumption, not His 3D flesh. That Jesus was revealing spirituaal reality is evidnce4d by what He said, that the words He was giving, they were spiritual because the flesh profits nothing ... Jesus related the flesh profits not a thing, eating His flesh profits nothing in this 3D realm, for it is the spiritual consumption which feeds the spirit of the man., His wordfs were spirit and truth.

Think about it if you started eating the 3D flesh and blood of Jesus (and the soul and divinity, according to your priest's utterance), which dose conveys eternal life/ which episode of feezlty to this ritual conveys eternal life?

And one more point regarding the letter to the Galatuians: if Paul was telling SAVED people that they could be unsaved by their poor adherence to the bread and wine ritual, how would thqat jive with Paul many other messages assuring salvation is by faith and is an immediate consequence of believing in Jesus? And Jesus, too, says believing is how we get born again, not doing, and doing, and doing ...

[Elsie]

So why not focus efforts on doing good things, instead of arguing.

Sorry Mr. K, but we have a bit of a mandate:

2 Timothy 3:16-17
 16.  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
 17.  so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

 

Acts 18:11
    So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.

 

Romans 15:4
 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

 

 

Romans 16:17
   I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.

 

 

1 Corinthians 4:17
   For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.

 

 

2 Thessalonians 2:15
   So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

 

 

2 Thessalonians 3:6
  In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching  you received from us.

 

 

1 Timothy 1:3-4
 3.  As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer
 4.  nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith.

 

 

1 Timothy 4:6
   If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.

 

 

1 Timothy 4:11
  Command and teach these things.

 

 

2 Timothy 1:13
  What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.

 

 

 2 Timothy 2:15
  Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

 

Titus 1:11
   They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach--and that for the sake of dishonest gain.

 

 

Titus 2:1
  You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.

 

 

Titus 2:15
  These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

 

 

2 John 1:10
  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.

[Elsie]

I post something as well of ST. Augustine

You sure did, and it shows him making statements that are NOT proveable, NOT scriptural, and definitely NOT believable!

[Elsie]

I can’t agree with your characterization of Paul here.

Can you agree with the WHOLE CHURCH?

---

Acts 15:22-29

 ²² Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. ²³ With them they sent the following letter:

   The apostles and elders, your brothers,

   To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

   Greetings.

 ²⁴ We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵ So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. ²⁸ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹ You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

   Farewell.

[Elsie]

Would the knowledge that Mary was born with all the eggs she could ever conceive with - came from her Mother changed his thinking?

Could God have only given Mary ONE egg then even, that the Holy Spirit would conceive in Christ with?

Would...
Could...

She sure had enough eggs for SOMETHING!

---

Brothers of Jesus

The New Testament describes James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon as brothers of Jesus. Also mentioned, but not named, are sisters of Jesus. The Catholic, Assyrian, and Eastern Orthodox churches believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is however not a dogma to most Protestant churches today, with many Protestants believing that Mary had other children besides Jesus.Wikipedia

[Elsie]

We read.. “but with God, ALL things are possible”…

Rome practices... "We can say/claim/teach any darned thing we want under the penumbra of this verse."

[Elsie]

For many the answer is heck no ! If its not in the Bible- it ain’t happening.

For Catholics - it COULD happen (any probably did) if Rome says so.

Judy Tanuta says so; too!